Christine Michael (5 Viewers)

[biju]

So here's a question for the ubber pro Michael crowd. If he doesn't surpass Turbin as the RB2 this year what will you're view on him be then? Pit seems like this is a pretty critical year for his long term value.

To me (a Seattle fan) I continue to believe he already has surpassed Turbin. Just because they use Turbin as a COP back doesn't mean he would take the lion's share of carries if Lynch were injured/released/hits FA. I find it odd after 25 pages people still don't understand this is the stance of the "uber pro" crowd.

 

[cstu]

We are one year closer than we were in August

So there are "like 18 pages" based on the calendar? Basically no matter what happened this year his value was going to "sky rocket"?

He averaged 4.4 YPC last year, Turbin averaged 3.4 and Lynch is another year older. The Seahawks will save $6M off their cap in 2015 by cutting Lynch.

 

[tdmills]

All of these statements are true. The question is, which are important and what do they mean? The main difference I see in this thread is what people choose to emphasize. Most of the Michael skeptics look something like this:

- Christine Michael never had a 1000 yard rushing season in college.

- Christine Michael was not a full-time starter as a senior.

- Christine Michael was Big 12 Offensive Freshman of the Year in 2009.

- Christine Michael had a 5.3 career YPC in college.

- Christine Michael is a freak athlete with off the charts measurables.

- Christine Michael suffered serious injuries in 2 out of 4 college seasons.

- Christine Michael was only a late 2nd round pick.

- Christine Michael was picked by a team that has done really well in the draft recently.

- Christine Michael barely played as a rookie.

- Christine Michael led the NFL in preseason rushing yards and looked awesome.

- Christine Michael generated a big buzz in training camp practices.

- Robert Turbin was active for all of Seattle's game whereas Christine Michael was only active for a few.

And most of the optimists look more like this:

- Christine Michael never had a 1000 yard rushing season in college.

- Christine Michael was not a full-time starter as a senior.

- Christine Michael was Big 12 Offensive Freshman of the Year in 2009.

- Christine Michael had a 5.3 career YPC in college.

- Christine Michael is a freak athlete with off the charts measurables.

- Christine Michael suffered serious injuries in 2 out of 4 college seasons.

- Christine Michael was a late 2nd round pick. That's pretty high.

- Christine Michael was picked by a team that has done really well in the draft recently.

- Christine Michael barely played as a rookie.

- Christine Michael led the NFL in preseason rushing yards and looked awesome.

- Christine Michael generated a big buzz in training camp practices.

- Robert Turbin was active for all of Seattle's game whereas Christine Michael was only active for a few.

EBF doesn't respond to my posts, but these simply aren't all accurate. Plus you're leaving out key negatives I had on him.

1) 5.3 YPC in college is a bonus? Cyrus Gray ran in the same offense for every season but 2012 and was a 2011 6th round pick(nothing special). Gray averaged 5.2 YPC. Another player you're not a fan of Bishop Sankey averaged over 5.4 YPC in his career. So why is Michael's 5.3 all that impressive, especially when he had limited seasons in college(which skews the data)?

2) Christine Michael is 23 and he came into the NFL as an old rookie RB.

3) You have the team that drafted him as a plus. Didn't they also draft Robert Turbin? Maybe they don't evaluate RB's well.

4) He landed in a bad situation that will likely mean he's 24 or 25 years old before he gets a starting job...if he ever gets one.

EBF's post was well thought out and articulated. It was a well above average attempt at defining the perspectives of the different camps on Michael.

Your arguing over minor subjective interpretations suggests you missed the larger point.

I didn't miss anything, ebf failed to include major negatives of Michael... that's not well thought out post.How would a post not talking about immediate return on your investment be thorough?

 

[humpback]

We are one year closer than we were in August

So there are "like 18 pages" based on the calendar? Basically no matter what happened this year his value was going to "sky rocket"?

He averaged 4.4 YPC last year, Turbin averaged 3.4 and Lynch is another year older. The Seahawks will save $6M off their cap in 2015 by cutting Lynch.

He averaged 4.4 ypc on 18 carries. Everyone knew how old Lynch was and his cap situation in August. Turbin averaged 3.4 ypc, but that didn't increase Michael's playing time or his prospects.

I don't think his value has changed all that much personally, but just trying to get an idea for why it has in some people's minds. We really don't know anything more now than we did then.

 

[ghostguy123]

We are one year closer than we were in August

So there are "like 18 pages" based on the calendar? Basically no matter what happened this year his value was going to "sky rocket"?

He averaged 4.4 YPC last year, Turbin averaged 3.4 and Lynch is another year older. The Seahawks will save $6M off their cap in 2015 by cutting Lynch.

He averaged 4.4 ypc on 18 carries. Everyone knew how old Lynch was and his cap situation in August. Turbin averaged 3.4 ypc, but that didn't increase Michael's playing time or his prospects.

I don't think his value has changed all that much personally, but just trying to get an idea for why it has in some people's minds. We really don't know anything more now than we did then.

I don't think his value changed in the sense that what he showed in limited duty last year neither hurt nor help how I feel about his talent.

However, I bump him a LITTLE by default based on Lynch being a year closer to not being the starter, considering anyone drafting Michael did it with the understanding that he would not be fantasy relevant till 2015 at the earliest (barring major injury to Lynch).

 

[DropKick]

All of these statements are true. The question is, which are important and what do they mean? The main difference I see in this thread is what people choose to emphasize. Most of the Michael skeptics look something like this:

- Christine Michael never had a 1000 yard rushing season in college.

- Christine Michael was not a full-time starter as a senior.

- Christine Michael was Big 12 Offensive Freshman of the Year in 2009.

- Christine Michael had a 5.3 career YPC in college.

- Christine Michael is a freak athlete with off the charts measurables.

- Christine Michael suffered serious injuries in 2 out of 4 college seasons.

- Christine Michael was only a late 2nd round pick.

- Christine Michael was picked by a team that has done really well in the draft recently.

- Christine Michael barely played as a rookie.

- Christine Michael led the NFL in preseason rushing yards and looked awesome.

- Christine Michael generated a big buzz in training camp practices.

- Robert Turbin was active for all of Seattle's game whereas Christine Michael was only active for a few.

And most of the optimists look more like this:

- Christine Michael never had a 1000 yard rushing season in college.

- Christine Michael was not a full-time starter as a senior.

- Christine Michael was Big 12 Offensive Freshman of the Year in 2009.

- Christine Michael had a 5.3 career YPC in college.

- Christine Michael is a freak athlete with off the charts measurables.

- Christine Michael suffered serious injuries in 2 out of 4 college seasons.

- Christine Michael was a late 2nd round pick. That's pretty high.

- Christine Michael was picked by a team that has done really well in the draft recently.

- Christine Michael barely played as a rookie.

- Christine Michael led the NFL in preseason rushing yards and looked awesome.

- Christine Michael generated a big buzz in training camp practices.

- Robert Turbin was active for all of Seattle's game whereas Christine Michael was only active for a few.

EBF doesn't respond to my posts, but these simply aren't all accurate. Plus you're leaving out key negatives I had on him.

1) 5.3 YPC in college is a bonus? Cyrus Gray ran in the same offense for every season but 2012 and was a 2011 6th round pick(nothing special). Gray averaged 5.2 YPC. Another player you're not a fan of Bishop Sankey averaged over 5.4 YPC in his career. So why is Michael's 5.3 all that impressive, especially when he had limited seasons in college(which skews the data)?

2) Christine Michael is 23 and he came into the NFL as an old rookie RB.

3) You have the team that drafted him as a plus. Didn't they also draft Robert Turbin? Maybe they don't evaluate RB's well.

4) He landed in a bad situation that will likely mean he's 24 or 25 years old before he gets a starting job...if he ever gets one.

EBF's post was well thought out and articulated. It was a well above average attempt at defining the perspectives of the different camps on Michael.

Your arguing over minor subjective interpretations suggests you missed the larger point.

I didn't miss anything, ebf failed to include major negatives of Michael... that's not well thought out post.How would a post not talking about immediate return on your investment be thorough?

Most definitely missed it (Rain Man voice).

 

[Dr. Octopus]

And again, I'm just taking Schneider at his word, based on the evidence. You could have argued that the "highest player on our board" meant, say, highest player on their positional board for RB's. That might be a reasonable explanation and I considered that. But he said "player" and, well, it's John Schneider (and Pete Carroll) talking.

Or it could have meant "highest player on our board" that was still available when they were...you know...on the clock and they picked Michael.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

You yourself mentioned him in the top 5 at each position thread man. And IIRC said you'd have him as high as RB6 if you were rebuilding. He's being compared to LT in here. People are arguing that he was the best overall player (not RB) in last year's draft class.60th overall / low end RB2 value isn't hugely objectionable to me, but I don't see that as very accurate as far as his actual value in established leagues where he's pretty likely to be owned by people whose opinions are mirrored by the more extreme Michael proponents in this thread.

I mentioned him as a candidate to break out because he fits the mold. What were Josh Gordon, Alshon Jeffery, Jordan Cameron, and Michael Floyd before their monster breakout season? High NFL draft picks with ideal measurables for their position. If you go back and look at breakouts in any NFL season, a healthy percentage of them will fit that basic description. So if you're looking for the next breakout stars, a good place to start is with developing prospects with special physical tools and a high NFL draft slot. Which current backup NFL RB fits that description better than Michael? I can't think of anyone. There are some guys like Bernard Pierce, Toby Gerhart, and Ben Tate who have a similar case. But to me, Michael is right up there with any non-elite RB in terms of having a chance to take the next big step. What you have to understand is that I'm saying he has a CHANCE to take that big step, not that he's GUARANTEED to take it.

You're right that he's a player whose actual price might be higher than his generic price because the teams that own him are likely to rate him 1-2 rounds above his generic market value. However, that's true of many players. Especially young prospects. Which owner is going to draft Justin Hunter, Lache Seastrunk, Mike Evans, or Marqise Lee? Probably one of the guys who thinks those players will pan out. You'd expect almost any player to end up on the roster of someone who rates him higher than the consensus because people draft players they like and avoid players they don't like. Since that affects many many players, I don't see it as a great argument specifically against Christine Michael. Yes, his owners are high on him. That's true for many players.

That doesn't mean it's impossible to find a fair price. The deal I posted above seems pretty modest to me. And if the ~60th overall ADP holds true for startup drafts, I think that's a cheap price for a guy with his boom potential. Considering that Lacy/Bell/Stacy go in the top 15-25 and that he might be more talented than those guys, I can't find much fault with taking him 60th or paying an equivalent price. It's really not very expensive given the risk/reward. I think you'd have a better argument if he were going 20th-30th in startup drafts, but that doesn't seem to be the case. So to say he's "already valued like a guaranteed impact player" seems well off the mark. I think you're making the mistake of taking a handful of statements from his most optimistic supporters and generalizing them to a wider population that doesn't actually share those beliefs.

Heck, in the Gresh/1.05 devy/1.12 rookie pick trade that I made, there were some people in the league grumbling that I overpaid and that it seemed like a steep price for Michael. He's a player whose value is all over the map right now. The fact that maybe 2-3 people per league really like him doesn't equate to "he's totally overvalued right now" to me unless you're saying "he's totally overvalued by the people who are way higher on him than average." Wouldn't that be true of most players? It doesn't seem like a very damning criticism to me.

This is all very reasonable.

Maybe it's just the hype on this board - those prices seem rather reasonable and I'd be willing to pay them.

 

[Neofight]

And again, I'm just taking Schneider at his word, based on the evidence. You could have argued that the "highest player on our board" meant, say, highest player on their positional board for RB's. That might be a reasonable explanation and I considered that. But he said "player" and, well, it's John Schneider (and Pete Carroll) talking.

Or it could have meant "highest player on our board" that was still available when they were...you know...on the clock and they picked Michael.

Schneider strikes me as many things, snarky is not one of them. Why would he state the obvious in the context with which the question was presented? You and others mentioned context up thread, and your angle makes little sense, in context. Is it safe to assume you never heard the clip?:giddyup:?

 

[Dr. Octopus]

And again, I'm just taking Schneider at his word, based on the evidence. You could have argued that the "highest player on our board" meant, say, highest player on their positional board for RB's. That might be a reasonable explanation and I considered that. But he said "player" and, well, it's John Schneider (and Pete Carroll) talking.

Or it could have meant "highest player on our board" that was still available when they were...you know...on the clock and they picked Michael.

Schneider strikes me as many things, snarky is not one of them. Why would he state the obvious in the context with which the question was presented? You and others mentioned context up thread, and your angle makes little sense, in context. Is it safe to assume you never heard the clip?

This will be the last time I respond to this (not trying to be a jerk, but just for the sake of moving on).

Reporter: Why did you take a RB with your first selection, when you already had Marshawn Lynch, Robert Turbin and Leon Washington on the roster?

Schneider: He was the highest rated player on our board.

That answer is not snarky. Perhaps it's simple, but It's responsive. It's also the most obvious interpretation to everyone but you it seems.

I can't say the you are definitely wrong and that Michael was not indeed the overalll highest ranked player on Seattle's draft board. Maybe, as you said, they would have taken him No. 1 overall (assuming they couldn't trade down). However that just doesn't seem realistic to me. We'll never know.

In the grand scheme of things it's only a minor quibble and has no bearing on what the future holds for Michael anyway.

 

[Neofight]

And again, I'm just taking Schneider at his word, based on the evidence. You could have argued that the "highest player on our board" meant, say, highest player on their positional board for RB's. That might be a reasonable explanation and I considered that. But he said "player" and, well, it's John Schneider (and Pete Carroll) talking.

Or it could have meant "highest player on our board" that was still available when they were...you know...on the clock and they picked Michael.

Schneider strikes me as many things, snarky is not one of them. Why would he state the obvious in the context with which the question was presented? You and others mentioned context up thread, and your angle makes little sense, in context. Is it safe to assume you never heard the clip?

This will be the last time I respond to this (not trying to be a jerk, but just for the sake of moving on). Reporter: Why did you take a RB with your first selection, when you already had Marshawn Lynch, Robert Turbin and Leon Washington on the roster? Schneider: He was the highest rated player on our board. That answer is not snarky. Perhaps it's simple, but It's responsive. It's also the most obvious interpretation to everyone but you it seems. I can't say the you are definitely wrong and that Michael was not indeed the overalll highest ranked player on Seattle's draft board. Maybe, as you said, they would have taken him No. 1 overall (assuming they couldn't trade down). However that just doesn't seem realistic to me. We'll never know. In the grand scheme of things it's only a minor quibble and has no bearing on what the future holds for Michael anyway.

True enough.

 

[gianmarco]

And again, I'm just taking Schneider at his word, based on the evidence. You could have argued that the "highest player on our board" meant, say, highest player on their positional board for RB's. That might be a reasonable explanation and I considered that. But he said "player" and, well, it's John Schneider (and Pete Carroll) talking.

Or it could have meant "highest player on our board" that was still available when they were...you know...on the clock and they picked Michael.

Schneider strikes me as many things, snarky is not one of them. Why would he state the obvious in the context with which the question was presented? You and others mentioned context up thread, and your angle makes little sense, in context. Is it safe to assume you never heard the clip?

This will be the last time I respond to this (not trying to be a jerk, but just for the sake of moving on).

Reporter: Why did you take a RB with your first selection, when you already had Marshawn Lynch, Robert Turbin and Leon Washington on the roster?

Schneider: He was the highest rated player on our board.

That answer is not snarky. Perhaps it's simple, but It's responsive. It's also the most obvious interpretation to everyone but you it seems.

I can't say the you are definitely wrong and that Michael was not indeed the overalll highest ranked player on Seattle's draft board. Maybe, as you said, they would have taken him No. 1 overall (assuming they couldn't trade down). However that just doesn't seem realistic to me. We'll never know.

In the grand scheme of things it's only a minor quibble and has no bearing on what the future holds for Michael anyway.

Pretty obvious that he means "when our pick was up". That doesn't mean top rated overall. They were up to pick, he was the guy at the top of their board with the guys left, and then they took him. Not sure how that's confusing.

 

[humpback]

Pretty obvious that he means "when our pick was up". That doesn't mean top rated overall. They were up to pick, he was the guy at the top of their board with the guys left, and then they took him. Not sure how that's confusing.

Oh no he didn't!

 

[Neofight]

Listen to the clip; Carroll's follow up as well. Then look at the per draft speculation. Then put the pieces together.

 

[Gandalf]

Yeah this argument seems largely irrelevant. Whether or not he was the bpa or the top player in the draft does not factor in his situation today, talent, opportunity and how he is currently viewed by Seattle.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Pretty obvious that he means "when our pick was up". That doesn't mean top rated overall. They were up to pick, he was the guy at the top of their board with the guys left, and then they took him. Not sure how that's confusing.

Its absolutely obvious.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

Pretty obvious that he means "when our pick was up". That doesn't mean top rated overall. They were up to pick, he was the guy at the top of their board with the guys left, and then they took him. Not sure how that's confusing.

Its absolutely obvious.

Yes, it is. But Michael being the 5th best RB in last year's class and a late 2nd round pick doesn't mesh with the narrative people have created about his talent level, so for some folks it's easier to just make stuff up that supports Michael being some kind of outrageous talent. Same thing as saying he was too valuable to risk on STs vs. just not being ready to contribute last year.

 

[cstu]

Pretty obvious that he means "when our pick was up". That doesn't mean top rated overall. They were up to pick, he was the guy at the top of their board with the guys left, and then they took him. Not sure how that's confusing.

Its absolutely obvious.

Yes, it is. But Michael being the 5th best RB in last year's class and a late 2nd round pick doesn't mesh with the narrative people have created about his talent level, so for some folks it's easier to just make stuff up that supports Michael being some kind of outrageous talent. Same thing as saying he was too valuable to risk on STs vs. just not being ready to contribute last year.

Tons of extremely talented players drop due character and injury questions, which Michael has both of.

 

[Neofight]

Pretty obvious that he means "when our pick was up". That doesn't mean top rated overall. They were up to pick, he was the guy at the top of their board with the guys left, and then they took him. Not sure how that's confusing.

Its absolutely obvious.

Yes, it is. But Michael being the 5th best RB in last year's class and a late 2nd round pick doesn't mesh with the narrative people have created about his talent level, so for some folks it's easier to just make stuff up that supports Michael being some kind of outrageous talent. Same thing as saying he was too valuable to risk on STs vs. just not being ready to contribute last year.

Michael is a fantastic talent and has been since he was a 5 star recruit and a consensus top three RB in the nation (some had him behind Brown and Richardson, some only behind Brown). I don't think anyone said he was too valuable to risk on ST either- the Seahawks play plenty of starters. Why the revisionist history?

 

[EBF]

Highly doubt he was the top player on their overall board. More likely that he was the top player on their board AT THAT PICK.

Putting that aside, his draft slot is not something that needs to be defended either way.

The 2nd round is a high pick. It's not an ELITE pick, but it's a high pick. Approximately 30-35% of 2nd-3rd rounders succeed and that includes some of the biggest stars of the past 5-10 years of FF. And being selected as the #X player at your position doesn't say much other than one particular team preferred a different player. We know the Steelers liked Bell more than Michael. We know the Packers like Lacy more than Michael. We know the Broncos and Bengals liked their backs more. We have no idea what the other 25+ teams in the NFL thought. To take the draft slot as concrete proof that he was regarded as the #X back in his class is pure conjecture.

Just looking around the league right now:

Christine Michael - 62nd overall (RB5)

Jamaal Charles - 73rd overall (RB10)

Frank Gore - 65th overall (RB6)

Maurice Jones Drew - 60th overall (RB6)

Ray Rice - 55th overall (RB7)

LeSean McCoy - 53rd overall (RB4)

Matt Forte - 44th overall (RB6)

The odds don't favor that kind of outcome, but it's narrow-minded to think that a great player can't fall to that range. Especially at RB. Many have in the recent past and many will in the near future. Whether Michael will become a member of that group remains to be seen, but it's certainly possible.

 

[Neofight]

Highly doubt he was the top player on their overall board. More likely that he was the top player on their board AT THAT PICK.

Putting that aside, his draft slot is not something that needs to be defended either way.

The 2nd round is a high pick. It's not an ELITE pick, but it's a high pick. Approximately 30-35% of 2nd-3rd rounders succeed and that includes some of the biggest stars of the past 5-10 years of FF. And being selected as the #X player at your position doesn't say much other than one particular team preferred a different player. We know the Steelers liked Bell more than Michael. We know the Packers like Lacy more than Michael. We know the Broncos and Bengals liked their backs more. We have no idea what the other 25+ teams in the NFL thought. To take the draft slot as concrete proof that he was regarded as the #X back in his class is pure conjecture.

Just looking around the league right now:

Christine Michael - 62nd overall (RB5)

Jamaal Charles - 73rd overall (RB10)

Frank Gore - 65th overall (RB6)

Maurice Jones Drew - 60th overall (RB6)

Ray Rice - 55th overall (RB7)

LeSean McCoy - 53rd overall (RB4)

Matt Forte - 44th overall (RB6)

The odds don't favor that kind of outcome, but it's narrow-minded to think that a great player can't fall to that range. Especially at RB. Many have in the recent past and many will in the near future. Whether Michael will become a member of that group remains to be seen, but it's certainly possible.

I highly doubted it slightly less than a year ago as well, then I started putting these puzzle pieces together. Which reminds me that I have to get back to that previous post of yours...

 

[Neofight]

Just for fun: B button. Don't think that one has made an appearance here yet, but if it has it is worth watching again.

Modest talent at the very least.

 

[Bamac]

I highly doubted it slightly less than a year ago as well, then I started putting these puzzle pieces together.

Advice: stay out of the Truther thread.

 

[Neofight]

I highly doubted it slightly less than a year ago as well, then I started putting these puzzle pieces together.

Advice: stay out of the Truther thread.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Jamaal Charles - 73rd overall (RB10)

Frank Gore - 65th overall (RB6)

Maurice Jones Drew - 60th overall (RB6)

Ray Rice - 55th overall (RB7)

LeSean McCoy - 53rd overall (RB4)

Matt Forte - 44th overall (RB6)

To say nothing of Arian Foster or Alfred Morris. It does happen.

 

[Neofight]

Jamaal Charles - 73rd overall (RB10)

Frank Gore - 65th overall (RB6)

Maurice Jones Drew - 60th overall (RB6)

Ray Rice - 55th overall (RB7)

LeSean McCoy - 53rd overall (RB4)

Matt Forte - 44th overall (RB6)

To say nothing of Arian Foster or Alfred Morris. It does happen.

My gut tells me you'll be able to add Stacy to this list in a few years.

 

[humpback]

Highly doubt he was the top player on their overall board. More likely that he was the top player on their board AT THAT PICK.

Putting that aside, his draft slot is not something that needs to be defended either way.

The 2nd round is a high pick. It's not an ELITE pick, but it's a high pick. Approximately 30-35% of 2nd-3rd rounders succeed and that includes some of the biggest stars of the past 5-10 years of FF. And being selected as the #X player at your position doesn't say much other than one particular team preferred a different player. We know the Steelers liked Bell more than Michael. We know the Packers like Lacy more than Michael. We know the Broncos and Bengals liked their backs more. We have no idea what the other 25+ teams in the NFL thought. To take the draft slot as concrete proof that he was regarded as the #X back in his class is pure conjecture.

Just looking around the league right now:

Christine Michael - 62nd overall (RB5)

Jamaal Charles - 73rd overall (RB10)

Frank Gore - 65th overall (RB6)

Maurice Jones Drew - 60th overall (RB6)

Ray Rice - 55th overall (RB7)

LeSean McCoy - 53rd overall (RB4)

Matt Forte - 44th overall (RB6)

The odds don't favor that kind of outcome, but it's narrow-minded to think that a great player can't fall to that range. Especially at RB. Many have in the recent past and many will in the near future. Whether Michael will become a member of that group remains to be seen, but it's certainly possible.

Has anyone said otherwise? If they have, they are clearly off base.

 

[EBF]

The odds don't favor that kind of outcome, but it's narrow-minded to think that a great player can't fall to that range. Especially at RB. Many have in the recent past and many will in the near future. Whether Michael will become a member of that group remains to be seen, but it's certainly possible.

Has anyone said otherwise? If they have, they are clearly off base.

It was a response to this:

Yes, it is. But Michael being the 5th best RB in last year's class and a late 2nd round pick doesn't mesh with the narrative people have created about his talent level, so for some folks it's easier to just make stuff up that supports Michael being some kind of outrageous talent. Same thing as saying he was too valuable to risk on STs vs. just not being ready to contribute last year.

I think anyone who has played in dynasty leagues long enough has seen a few owners who chronically overvalue each crop of prospects and always sell the farm for each iteration of the "next big thing." Indiscriminately going all-in for every hyped up rookie is a suspect long term strategy. However, I think it's important not to lose sight of the idea that some of those "next big thing" hype darlings are, in fact, the next big thing.

Regardless of whether or not Michael is the next Frank Gore or the next Montario Hardesty, remember that every one of those elite 2nd-3rd round backs like MJD, Charles, McCoy, Rice, Portis, Forte, and Gore began his career as just another "maybe" with a host of supporters, but also a legion of skeptics quick to offer a wide variety of explanations for why he wasn't going to be that good. So if you're going to dog a guy like Michael, it would be more convincing if you provided concrete reasons why he isn't that good instead of just saying, "Nah, he was a 2nd round pick and only the 5th RB taken in his draft. He's not an elite player."

That is a facepalm inducing argument when the RB VBD leaderboard of the past 5-10 years would be littered with guys like that.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

The odds don't favor that kind of outcome, but it's narrow-minded to think that a great player can't fall to that range. Especially at RB. Many have in the recent past and many will in the near future. Whether Michael will become a member of that group remains to be seen, but it's certainly possible.

Has anyone said otherwise? If they have, they are clearly off base.

It was a response to this:

Yes, it is. But Michael being the 5th best RB in last year's class and a late 2nd round pick doesn't mesh with the narrative people have created about his talent level, so for some folks it's easier to just make stuff up that supports Michael being some kind of outrageous talent. Same thing as saying he was too valuable to risk on STs vs. just not being ready to contribute last year.

I think anyone who has played in dynasty leagues long enough has seen a few owners who chronically overvalue each crop of prospects and always sell the farm for each iteration of the "next big thing." Indiscriminately going all-in for every hyped up rookie is a suspect long term strategy. However, I think it's important not to lose sight of the idea that some of those "next big thing" hype darlings are, in fact, the next big thing.

Regardless of whether or not Michael is the next Frank Gore or the next Montario Hardesty, remember that every one of those elite 2nd-3rd round backs like MJD, Charles, McCoy, Rice, Portis, Forte, and Gore began his career as just another "maybe" with a host of supporters, but also a legion of skeptics quick to offer a wide variety of explanations for why he wasn't going to be that good. So if you're going to dog a guy like Michael, it would be more convincing if you provided concrete reasons why he isn't that good instead of just saying, "Nah, he was a 2nd round pick and only the 5th RB taken in his draft. He's not an elite player."

That is a facepalm inducing argument when the RB VBD leaderboard of the past 5-10 years would be littered with guys like that.

Saying a guy isn't an elite prospect certainly isn't the same as saying he has no chance at becoming an elite player. I think it's a sucker bet to pay high RB2 value for a guy with Michael's profile (you had him at RB13 IIRC, and said you'd slot him at RB6 for a rebuilding team) -- it has nothing to do with Michael himself as I haven't seen enough from him to outweigh the tangible evidence provided by his draft position. Probably not worth much more discussion -- you're a shiny new toy kind of guy, and I'm not. Neither way is necessarily wrong, they're just different approaches.

 

[Neofight]

That about sums it up.

 

[humpback]

The odds don't favor that kind of outcome, but it's narrow-minded to think that a great player can't fall to that range. Especially at RB. Many have in the recent past and many will in the near future. Whether Michael will become a member of that group remains to be seen, but it's certainly possible.

Has anyone said otherwise? If they have, they are clearly off base.

It was a response to this:

Yes, it is. But Michael being the 5th best RB in last year's class and a late 2nd round pick doesn't mesh with the narrative people have created about his talent level, so for some folks it's easier to just make stuff up that supports Michael being some kind of outrageous talent. Same thing as saying he was too valuable to risk on STs vs. just not being ready to contribute last year.

I think anyone who has played in dynasty leagues long enough has seen a few owners who chronically overvalue each crop of prospects and always sell the farm for each iteration of the "next big thing." Indiscriminately going all-in for every hyped up rookie is a suspect long term strategy. However, I think it's important not to lose sight of the idea that some of those "next big thing" hype darlings are, in fact, the next big thing.

Regardless of whether or not Michael is the next Frank Gore or the next Montario Hardesty, remember that every one of those elite 2nd-3rd round backs like MJD, Charles, McCoy, Rice, Portis, Forte, and Gore began his career as just another "maybe" with a host of supporters, but also a legion of skeptics quick to offer a wide variety of explanations for why he wasn't going to be that good. So if you're going to dog a guy like Michael, it would be more convincing if you provided concrete reasons why he isn't that good instead of just saying, "Nah, he was a 2nd round pick and only the 5th RB taken in his draft. He's not an elite player."

That is a facepalm inducing argument when the RB VBD leaderboard of the past 5-10 years would be littered with guys like that.

Where did he say it wasn't possible?

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Yes, it is. But Michael being the 5th best RB in last year's class and a late 2nd round pick doesn't mesh with the narrative people have created about his talent level, so for some folks it's easier to just make stuff up that supports Michael being some kind of outrageous talent. Same thing as saying he was too valuable to risk on STs vs. just not being ready to contribute last year.

Didn't Michael's draft stock drop quite a bit for both injuries AND off the field issues? Even ignoring the normal "scouts are often wrong about talent" (see: any number of the league's current top running backs), doesn't him dropping for reasons outside of talent make it even less of a stretch to think that he's actually a really talented guy in spite of who was drafted ahead of him?

It's not like it took people 5 years to realize that Randy Moss was more talented than Kevin Dyson, even though he was drafted behind him. That was pretty evident in week 1 of the preseason of their rookie years. Dyson was drafted ahead of Moss for other reasons.

 

[Biabreakable]

Now Christine Michael is Randy Moss?

 

[EastonBlues22]

Now Christine Michael is Randy Moss?

I can't tell if you're being disingenuous, but using Moss to highlight a point about Michael because most people are familiar with Moss' history isn't the same as saying Michael = Moss.

 

[Biabreakable]

Now Christine Michael is Randy Moss?

I can't tell if you're being disingenuous, but using Moss to highlight a point about Michael because most people are familiar with Moss' history isn't the same as saying Michael = Moss.

I'm joking.

I like the spin of Michaels character concerns causing him to fall in NFl draft leading to him being uber talented just like Moss angle.

 

[EastonBlues22]

It seems pretty easy to make a case that Michael is a non-finished product with some measure of real talent in him, and practically everyone agrees that his situation isn't currently conducive to fantasy production, yet we see endless quibbling on the topic (often fueled by the reduction of reasonable points to absurd extremes).

Michael is a shades of gray prospect. There's plenty of room for reasonable disagreement based on differing interpretations of what we know about him, as long as we are willing to accept that two people can look at the same information and come to different conclusions that are both intellectually honest.

 

[Englishteacher]

It seems pretty easy to make a case that Michael is a non-finished product with some measure of real talent in him, and practically everyone agrees that his situation isn't currently conducive to fantasy production, yet we see endless quibbling on the topic (often fueled by the reduction of reasonable points to absurd extremes).

Michael is a shades of gray prospect. There's plenty of room for reasonable disagreement based on differing interpretations of what we know about him, as long as we are willing to accept that two people can look at the same information and come to different conclusions that are both intellectually honest.

Well, there's a voice of reason. Well done, sir.

 

[domvin]

http://sportsglory.com/nfl/seahawks-running-back-christine-michael-grants-teens-prom-wish/16576

Awesome

 

[Englishteacher]

From NFL.com:

Percy Harvin, Christine Michael key to '14 Seahawks12

• 
• 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• By Chris Wesseling
• Around the League Writer
• Published: April 1, 2014 at 04:12 p.m.
• Updated: April 1, 2014 at 04:29 p.m.

Since annihilating the Broncos in Super Bowl XLVIII, the Seattle Seahawks have lost key players such as Golden Tate, Red Bryant, Chris Clemons, Brandon Browner and Walter Thurmond without adding a single big name on the free-agent market.


Don't mistake general manager John Schneider's inactivity with complacency.

Because he boasted the league's deepest roster and building blocks on both sides of the ball, Schneider understands help is on the way from players who barely contributed in 2013.

Schneider told KIRO Seattle Tuesday, via The Seattle Times, that the Seahawks are "pleased with the way things are going" this offseason.

For all of their success last season, Schneider astutely pointed out that "two of our most explosive offensive players" in Percy Harvin and Christine Michael barely contributed.

The Seahawks have high expectations for Harvin as an every-down player in 2014. When healthy, he's one of the NFL's rare difference-makers at wide receiver.

In addition to Harvin and Michael, the team's brass also has high hopes for young defensive players such as pass rusherGreg Scruggs and cornerbacks Jeremy Lane and Tharold Simon.With an impressive power-speed blend, Michael was among the league's most impressive tailbacks during preseason action last season. Coach Pete Carroll told reporters at theNFL Scouting Combine that Michael is the biggest breakout candidate on the roster.

No organization has gotten more production from its late-round draft picks over the past couple of years. Hidden gems like All Pro Richard Sherman and Super Bowl MVP Malcolm Smith never surface if pricey veterans aren't pushed out the door to open opportunities for playing time.

 

[Gandalf]

Rotoworld:

Seahawks second-round RB Christine Michael reportedly impressed the coaching staff during OTAs and minicamp.

With Marshawn Lynch skipping all the voluntary sessions, Michael got a chance to spread his extremely talented wings. Former NFL scout Matt Williamson predicts Michael will be a "total stud and true every-down running back" by 2016. That big chance could come sooner if Marshawn Lynch's unresolved DUI case grows legs before Week 1. We suspect Michael will outplay incumbent backup Robert Turbin at training camp.

Related: Robert Turbin

Source: Seattle Post-Intelligencer

Nice. There is so much talent there. I can't wait to see what Michael does when his turn comes.

 

[bumpman]

It has to be a plus that the GM and head coach are singling Michael out this offseason for praise.

Schneider also mentioned that the Seahawks barely used what he called “two of our most explosive offensive players” in Percy Harvin and Christine Michael.

“We are blessed enough to have a young, talented team and we need to be able to plan accordingly to be able to reward those players,” he said.

http://blogs.seattletimes.com/seahawks/2014/04/01/schneider-we-are-pleased-with-the-way-things-are-going/

 

[Alex P Keaton]

From NFL.com:

Percy Harvin, Christine Michael key to '14 Seahawks

12

• 
• 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• By Chris Wesseling
• Around the League Writer
• Published: April 1, 2014 at 04:12 p.m.
• Updated: April 1, 2014 at 04:29 p.m.

Since annihilating the Broncos in Super Bowl XLVIII, the Seattle Seahawks have lost key players such as Golden Tate, Red Bryant, Chris Clemons, Brandon Browner and Walter Thurmond without adding a single big name on the free-agent market.

Don't mistake general manager John Schneider's inactivity with complacency.

Because he boasted the league's deepest roster and building blocks on both sides of the ball, Schneider understands help is on the way from players who barely contributed in 2013.

Schneider told KIRO Seattle Tuesday, via The Seattle Times, that the Seahawks are "pleased with the way things are going" this offseason.

For all of their success last season, Schneider astutely pointed out that "two of our most explosive offensive players" in Percy Harvin and Christine Michael barely contributed.

The Seahawks have high expectations for Harvin as an every-down player in 2014. When healthy, he's one of the NFL's rare difference-makers at wide receiver.

In addition to Harvin and Michael, the team's brass also has high hopes for young defensive players such as pass rusherGreg Scruggs and cornerbacks Jeremy Lane and Tharold Simon.With an impressive power-speed blend, Michael was among the league's most impressive tailbacks during preseason action last season. Coach Pete Carroll told reporters at theNFL Scouting Combine that Michael is the biggest breakout candidate on the roster.

No organization has gotten more production from its late-round draft picks over the past couple of years. Hidden gems like All Pro Richard Sherman and Super Bowl MVP Malcolm Smith never surface if pricey veterans aren't pushed out the door to open opportunities for playing time.

Puff piece

 

[karmarooster]

Michael now routinely going in the 4th round of dynasty startups, in the RB13-15 range, ahead of the likes of Ellington, Murray, Vereen, Tate. Guys in their prime or soon to be prime, who have a much more immediate chance to put up the kind of numbers we hope Michael can put up in 2015+.

Makes me content to have picked him up last year in a start up in the 9th. I've always been a believer but these prices are crazy. Would much prefer Lattimore in the 6/7th.

 

[Gandalf]

Michael now routinely going in the 4th round of dynasty startups, in the RB13-15 range, ahead of the likes of Ellington, Murray, Vereen, Tate. Guys in their prime or soon to be prime, who have a much more immediate chance to put up the kind of numbers we hope Michael can put up in 2015+.

Makes me content to have picked him up last year in a start up in the 9th. I've always been a believer but these prices are crazy. Would much prefer Lattimore in the 6/7th.

The prices are only crazy if he doesn't get to start in 2015. If you think Lynch is gone after this contract and believe in his talent then that is the going price to get Michael. Might be too rich for your blood but in new start ups that's the price. I like him a lot but if I had a shot to win this year and could move him for a significant piece of the puzzle to help me win now, I would do it. Otherwise, I'm content to keep him on my bench and see what happens.

I like Lattimore too.

 

[karmarooster]

I think that 4th round price is assuming that (1) Lynch is gone in 2015, and Michael shows something in 2014 to demonstrate he will take over as the lead back in 2015, (2) Turbin proves to be a complete back up and not a time share, (3) Michael remains healthy in 2014 and can remain healthy in 2015, (4) Michael doesn't get arrested or test positive for anything in 2014 and 2015, and (5) Carroll remains the coach, they re-sign Wilson (ideally for Non-Flacco money), and the O-line remains good. Basically a best case scenario - and the 4th round price is too much if any one of them shows up.

None of those things are particularly NOT likely to happen in my opinion, but when you pile them up, its easy to see that something could get in the way considering such a long time line.

 

[EBF]

He doesn't have to be great in the long term to justify that kind of investment. Look at how high Lacy and Bell have spiked after just one season of mediocre NFL performance. Regardless of what those guys do in the future, right this very second you have a great opportunity to cash them out for high value. I think it will only take maybe 8-10 games of Michael as a starter for his value to shoot up into the same range. He is a far more dynamic runner than Bell/Lacy/Stacy. When he gets his chance, it might be sort of eye-opening for a lot of the people who are on the fence. Once they're sold, his value should explode.

There's certainly a layer of risk, but then you're generally not going to get a proven star in his prime at that range of a dynasty startup (Graham, Demaryius, Dez, etc will all be long gone). Either you take a second tier youngster, another unproven prospect, a great player at a position of low value, or an aging veteran with minimal remaining shelf life. Given the options, it's not an absurd range for Michael.

 

[jurb26]

He doesn't have to be great in the long term to justify that kind of investment. Look at how high Lacy and Bell have spiked after just one season of mediocre NFL performance. Regardless of what those guys do in the future, right this very second you have a great opportunity to cash them out for high value. I think it will only take maybe 8-10 games of Michael as a starter for his value to shoot up into the same range. He is a far more dynamic runner than Bell/Lacy/Stacy.

Holy moly. There was nothing about Lacy's 1435 yds and 11 TDs in 15 games that was "mediocre." That the the hyperbole of far more dynamic? Come on.

 

[karmarooster]

Yeah that surprised me too. EBF is doing a bit of a chameleon here, that goes something like "Seastrunk has some of the most elite measureables ever" --> "but he isn't elite like Bernard" --> "Lacy were mediocre" (who is similarly ranked by most with Bernard, and had the same 4.1 YPC --> "Michael in the 4th round is reasonable." I really appreciate his contributions, but sometimes they just don't line up consistently.

If you want to talk about Bell and his 3.5 YPC as mediocre, I would agree. Stacy at 3.9? Maybe (he was on the rams with Kellen Clemons, after all).

 

[EBF]

He doesn't have to be great in the long term to justify that kind of investment. Look at how high Lacy and Bell have spiked after just one season of mediocre NFL performance. Regardless of what those guys do in the future, right this very second you have a great opportunity to cash them out for high value. I think it will only take maybe 8-10 games of Michael as a starter for his value to shoot up into the same range. He is a far more dynamic runner than Bell/Lacy/Stacy.

Holy moly. There was nothing about Lacy's 1435 yds and 11 TDs in 15 games that was "mediocre." That the the hyperbole of far more dynamic? Come on.

There were 22 RBs in the NFL who had at least 200 carries last year. The average YPC of that group was 3.99. Lacy's was 4.15.

If you sort those 22 RBs according to YPC, you get this list:

5.2 - DeMarco Murray

5.1 - LeSean McCoy

5.0 - Jamaal Charles

4.6 - Matt Forte

4.6 - Alfred Morris

4.6 - CJ Spiller

4.5 - Reggie Bush

4.5 - Adrian Peterson

4.4 - Ryan Mathews

4.3 - Fred Jackson

4.3 - Knowshon Moreno

4.2 - Marshawn Lynch

4.2 - DeAngelo Williams

4.1 - Frank Gore

4.1 - Eddie Lacy

3.9 - Chris Johnson

3.9 - Zac Stacy

3.5 - LeVeon Bell

3.4 - Benjarvus Green-Ellis

3.4 - Maurice Jones-Drew

3.2 - Rashard Mendenhall

3.1 - Ray Rice

13 of 22 players are above him here, so he's actually below the median performance level for players with similar volume of opportunities.

He was also one of the worst backs in the NFL at breaking long runs (20+ yards). Here are the averages for all the backs who had 200+ carries.

CJ Spiller - 4.48%

DeMarco Murray - 3.69%

Alfred Morris - 3.62%

Frank Gore - 3.26%

Matt Forte - 3.11%

DeAngelo Williams - 2.99%

LeSean McCoy - 2.87%

Adrian Peterson - 2.87%

Reggie Bush - 2.69%

Ryan Mathews - 2.46%

Jamaal Charles - 2.32%

Chris Johnson - 2.15%

Maurice Jones-Drew - 2.14%

Knowshon Moreno - 2.07%

Zac Stacy - 2.00%

Marshawn Lynch - 1.99%

LeVeon Bell - 1.64%

Eddie Lacy - 1.05%

Fred Jackson - 0.48%

Ray Rice - 0.47%

Rashard Mendenhall - 0.46%

BenJarvus Green-Ellis - 0.45%

You might be right that "nothing about his" numbers was mediocre. Mediocre might have been too kind, as he was a relatively poor runner last year. He offered nothing dynamic or explosive compared with the typical replacement level back.

Lacy is perceived as having a great rookie year because people equate FF performance with NFL performance. In FF, he was a top 10 back in most leagues. In the NFL, he was an average to slightly below average runner who did some decent things as a receiver.

I'm pretty confident that Christine Michael in an equivalent situation would have a much higher YPC and a much higher long run %. The big question with him is whether or not he'll ever get that opportunity and whether or not he'll be able to stay healthy. I'd answer yes to question #1 and maybe to question #2. Purely as a run talent, he is far ahead of Lacy though.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

He doesn't have to be great in the long term to justify that kind of investment. Look at how high Lacy and Bell have spiked after just one season of mediocre NFL performance. Regardless of what those guys do in the future, right this very second you have a great opportunity to cash them out for high value. I think it will only take maybe 8-10 games of Michael as a starter for his value to shoot up into the same range. He is a far more dynamic runner than Bell/Lacy/Stacy.

Holy moly. There was nothing about Lacy's 1435 yds and 11 TDs in 15 games that was "mediocre." That the the hyperbole of far more dynamic? Come on.

There were 22 RBs in the NFL who had at least 200 carries last year. The average YPC of that group was 3.99. Lacy's was 4.15.

If you sort those 22 RBs according to YPC, you get this list:

5.2 - DeMarco Murray

5.1 - LeSean McCoy

5.0 - Jamaal Charles

4.6 - Matt Forte

4.6 - Alfred Morris

4.6 - CJ Spiller

4.5 - Reggie Bush

4.5 - Adrian Peterson

4.4 - Ryan Mathews

4.3 - Fred Jackson

4.3 - Knowshon Moreno

4.2 - Marshawn Lynch

4.2 - DeAngelo Williams

4.1 - Frank Gore

4.1 - Eddie Lacy

3.9 - Chris Johnson

3.9 - Zac Stacy

3.5 - LeVeon Bell

3.4 - Benjarvus Green-Ellis

3.4 - Maurice Jones-Drew

3.2 - Rashard Mendenhall

3.1 - Ray Rice

13 of 22 players are above him here, so he's actually below the median performance level for players with similar volume of opportunities.

He was also one of the worst backs in the NFL at breaking long runs (20+ yards). Here are the averages for all the backs who had 200+ carries.

CJ Spiller - 4.48%

DeMarco Murray - 3.69%

Alfred Morris - 3.62%

Frank Gore - 3.26%

Matt Forte - 3.11%

DeAngelo Williams - 2.99%

LeSean McCoy - 2.87%

Adrian Peterson - 2.87%

Reggie Bush - 2.69%

Ryan Mathews - 2.46%

Jamaal Charles - 2.32%

Chris Johnson - 2.15%

Maurice Jones-Drew - 2.14%

Knowshon Moreno - 2.07%

Zac Stacy - 2.00%

Marshawn Lynch - 1.99%

LeVeon Bell - 1.64%

Eddie Lacy - 1.05%

Fred Jackson - 0.48%

Ray Rice - 0.47%

Rashard Mendenhall - 0.46%

BenJarvus Green-Ellis - 0.45%

You might be right that "nothing about his" numbers was mediocre. Mediocre might have been too kind, as he was a relatively poor runner last year. He offered nothing dynamic or explosive compared with the typical replacement level back.

Lacy is perceived as having a great rookie year because people equate FF performance with NFL performance. In FF, he was a top 10 back in most leagues. In the NFL, he was an average to slightly below average runner who did some decent things as a receiver.

I'm pretty confident that Christine Michael in an equivalent situation would have a much higher YPC and a much higher long run %. The big question with him is whether or not he'll ever get that opportunity and whether or not he'll be able to stay healthy. I'd answer yes to question #1 and maybe to question #2. Purely as a run talent, he is far ahead of Lacy though.

Interesting to see you using the volume only argument against Lacy, when you totally dismisses it last year for Richardson, despite Trent's efficiency numbers being way, way worse.